Kamala Harris carries the torch, and the burden, of Bidenomics

Pinpointing differences in the economic views of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden is no easy task: the two have promoted the same ideas and touted the same accomplishments for the past three and a half years. But give this to Ms Harris: she seems capable of wrapping their wide set of policies, from semiconductor subsidies to student-debt cancellation, in more attractive packaging than her boss did. Mr Biden called it his “build back better” agenda, a mouthful that never caught on. In recent speeches on economics the backdrop behind Ms Harris has displayed a more elegant phrase: “freedom to thrive”.

Whether or not that becomes a slogan in her presidential campaign, people who have worked with Ms Harris say it encapsulates her philosophy and her approach to economic policy. She would aim for an extension, not a refashioning, of Bidenomics. Mr Biden delivered one half of his programme, with large investments in American infrastructure, manufacturing and green energy. Ms Harris would continue that, now mostly in its implementation phase. But her main focus would be on the other half of his programme, a social agenda left largely unconsummated.

That includes trying to secure more funding for kindergarten, higher wages for homecare workers and paid family leave for all. So it was no coincidence that the first two unions to endorse Ms Harris, within hours of Mr Biden’s exit from the presidential race, were the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union, which represents nurses, among others. Ms Harris has also played a crucial role in getting the Biden administration to reduce the burden of medical debt for Americans (through a rule that removes medical debt from personal credit scores), something that she would probably build on as president.

Jim Kessler of Third Way, a think-tank aligned with centrist Democrats, thinks her focus on social issues reflects her background as a California Democrat. “You see just an unbelievable dynamism in the state economy, and then also the difficulties that this creates for middle-class people on affordability issues,” he says. “You get a mix that is very pro-capitalist but also pro-consumer, and you see that with her.”

Her experience as California’s attorney-general, the state’s top prosecutor, also gave her a belief in the power of regulations to serve the public good—a sharp contrast with Donald Trump’s desire to shrink the government’s footprint. In one prominent case, by playing hardball with some of America’s biggest banks, she ended up securing an $18bn settlement for Californians hit by improper mortgage foreclosures. “She’s very proud of that,” says Felicia Wong of Roosevelt Forward, a progressive advocacy group. “It is a one-two punch. She’ll promote workers’ rights and then also make sure that companies and the financial system are not abusing them.”

That naturally raises the question of whether Ms Harris stands to Mr Biden’s left on economics. Her platform for the Democratic primaries of 2020 certainly suggested she might. She initially campaigned for “Medicare for all”, a single health-insurance plan for all Americans that would involve much more government centralisation than the smorgasbord of private and public options in the current system. She also proposed a full repeal of Mr Trump’s tax cuts passed in 2017, whereas Mr Biden has called for maintaining lower tax rates for people earning less than $400,000 a year, or about 98% of the population.

Nevertheless, drawing conclusions from positions she took in 2020 may be misleading. Back then she tried to place herself between the progressive flank of the Democratic Party and its mainstream middle, which opened her to attacks from both. This same division plagued her campaign team for the primaries, split between left-wing advisers, including her sister Maya, and a more centrist group. Over the past few years she has gravitated to the party’s middle. Her main advisers on economic policy have included Mike Pyle and Deanne Millison, both of whom are moderate voices. Ms Harris also seems to have adopted Mr Biden’s milder positions on health care and taxes, though she has yet to spell out her plans for either. “There is no real daylight between her and the president,” says a former member of her team.

The fact that Kamalanomics looks so much like Bidenomics poses big risks for her candidacy, given how unpopular the latter has proved to be. In poll after poll a clear majority of Americans grade Mr Biden poorly on the economy, their pessimism heavily coloured by inflation. The same harsh judgment could easily apply to Ms Harris. Not only was she Mr Biden’s deputy, she had called for even bigger fiscal handouts at the height of the covid-19 pandemic, which might have made for higher inflation. As it stands, she accentuates the positives, notably the creation of more than 15m jobs on her and Mr Biden’s watch.

Yet this underscores the challenge that Ms Harris now faces. She cannot repudiate Mr Biden’s record on the economy, having been so closely associated with it. But drawing attention to the administration’s successes and to the economy’s strengths may not work either. For the better part of two years the White House has been trying to do just that, to little avail. “Freedom to thrive” sounds good, but, like her boss, Ms Harris may find it overpowered by the American people’s freedom to gripe.

© 2024, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under licence. The original content can be found on www.economist.com